I agree marketing version should be an integer or a name. Actually I like the idea of a name, it would make the separation between developer and marketing version more clear. But that's up to marketing really :)
On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Sameer Verma wrote: > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Walter Bender > <walter.ben...@gmail.com<javascript:;>> > wrote: > > The other possibility is to multiply by 100, dropping the decimal > > point, .e.g., we just released Sugar 100 and are working on Sugar 102. > > > > -walter > > I did this a couple of times on Twitter, but I like it! > > I had a chat with my wife this morning about version numbers. She is > very non-technical (she's an office manager), and she completely > didn't get the decimal thing. She said, give it a name or give it a > number. If you want to address perceptions of the population at large > (outside of our bubble), then go with what people can understand. > > Here are some interesting perspectives: > > http://www.pragmaticmarketing.com/resources/version-numbers-and-project-names > http://technologizer.com/2009/07/14/version-numbers/ > http://ruthlesslyhelpful.net/2012/03/05/build-numbering-and-versioning/ > > and of course, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning > > cheers, > Sameer > > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Daniel Narvaez <dwnarv...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> What about calling it 1.102 (tech version). That shouldn't come with any > >> message attached... It would address the fact that we never released a > 1.0 > >> without having PR consequences. Then when we figure out what 2.0 really > >> means marketing wise, we can start releasing 2.x as you suggest... > >> > >> > >> On Thursday, 7 November 2013, Sean DALY wrote: > >>> > >>> If we are talking about a version number that might make it into a > press > >>> release at some point, this is a marketing discussion so I have cc'd > the > >>> list. > >>> > >>> As I've explained previously, the major issue with a v1 seven years > after > >>> entering production is that it is incomprehensible. Non-techies (i.e. > >>> teachers) discovering Sugar will naturally assume there are 0 years of > >>> production behind it. Tech journalists will roll on the floor laughing > at a > >>> Slashdot post e.g. "Seven Years After OLPC's First Laptop, Sugar > Reaches > >>> V1". > >>> > >>> We dealt with this problem when Sugar was numbered Sugar on a Stick v6 > was > >>> renamed "Sugar on a Stick v1 Strawberry" and the press responded to an > >>> easy-to-understand story - that SL had spun off from OLPC and had a > first > >>> non-OLPC version available. That the technical version number of the > >>> underlying Sugar was different was made irrelevant. > >>> > >>> We need to do this again. The addition of browser support is a big > deal. > >>> In my view Sugar should be publicly numbered v2, perhaps with a name > i.e. > >>> "Sugar v2 Online" or "Sugar v2 Tablet" (or something - this needs > marketing > >>> work), with a clear story: Sugar opens up a new direction after seven > years > >>> of production. > >>> > >>> The existing technical version numbering system has the merit of being > >>> understandable to developers and the deployments community and could be > >>> associated internally with the public number, i.e. 2.102, 2.104 etc., > which > >>> would not box us into a numbering system we can't market. Or perhaps > become > >>> irrelevant as Daniel N has suggested if we go to continuous development > >>> mode. > >>> > >>> I have more grey hair than I did when I first proposed we go to v1 six > >>> years ago [1]... > >>> > >>> (!) > >>> > >>> So I think we are ready for v2. > >>> > >>> Sean. > >>> > >>> [1] > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/marketing/2008-November/000425.html > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Gonzalo Odiard <gonz...@laptop.org> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> We already have this discussion for Sugar 0.100, > >>>> why not do it again? :) > >>>> > >>>> With more than 7 years of development and more than 2 million of > users, > >>>> probably we should accept a 1.0 version is deserved. > >>>> > >>>> With 6 months more, probably the web api will be more established, > >>>> and we are not doing incompatible changes to the python api. > >>>> > >>>> Anybody have a Really Good Motive(r) to not do it? > >>>> > >>>> Gonzalo > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Sugar-devel mailing list > >>>> sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org > >>>> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Daniel Narvaez > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Marketing mailing list > >> Marketing@lists.sugarlabs.org > >> <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing> -- Daniel Narvaez
_______________________________________________ Marketing mailing list Marketing@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/marketing
